10 yeasDETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyazaki et al (US 2018/0099527).
Regarding claim 1-2, Miyazaki teaches a rubber composition (Abstract) for a tire ([0001]) tread ([0012]) comprising 100 parts by mass of a rubber which is 100% ([0038]) solution polymerized styrene-butadiene rubber ([0023]), 30 to 150 phr of silica ([0110]) and 0.5 to 50 phr of a plasticizer ([0099]). The plasticizer can be triethyl phosphate ([0074]) which is a trialkyl phosphate with 6 carbon atoms. Given the amounts of the silica and the trialkyl phosphate, the amount of the trialkyl phosphate can be calculated to range from 0.3 to 166% by mass of the silica which overlaps the claimed range of 1.5 to 20 % by mass.
Miyazaki does not explicitly exemplify the recited invention, however, given the teachings within the specification of Miyazaki, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the teachings to arrive at the presently claimed invention. Miyazaki teaches all the claimed components in amounts which overlap the claimed ranges. It would have been nothing more than using known components in a typical manner to achieve predictable results. KSR v. Teleflex, 550 U.S. _, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 3, Miyazaki teaches that the sSBR can be modified ([0023]).
Regarding claim 4, Miyazaki teaches that the composition further comprises a hydrocarbon-based resin such as a polyterpene resin ([0060]).
Regarding claim 5-8, Miyazaki teaches a tire comprising the rubber composition of claims 1-4 above used in a tread ([0134]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DORIS L LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3872. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arrie Lanee Reuther can be reached at 571-270-7026. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
DORIS L. LEE
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1764
/DORIS L LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1764